2010 survey on mapping done by Arie
INURA ZURICH 2010 A QUICK AND DIRTY SURVEY OF THE NMM MAPING EXPERIENCE Answers from 23 cities: ADD Addis Ababa AMS Amsterdam BAR Barcelona BAS Basel BEI Beirut BEL Belgrade BERL Berlin BERN Berne CAI Cairo FLO Florence GLA Glasgow GRE Green Bay HAM Hamburg HON Hon Kong IST Istanbul LON London MED Medellin MEX Mexico City SPE St.Petersburg TAL Talinn TOR Toronto VIE Vienna WIN Winnipeg GENERAL EXPERIENCE Positive * Good stimulus to discover the city (MED) * Forced to localise trends in space (AMS) * Discovery of complexity, diversity & conflicts in the city (MEX) * Mapping brings people together (VIE, MED) * Discovery: NMM is not only transformation by capital but has also local state and organised social actors * Categories/explanation worked well (WIN, BAR, BERL) * Great experience (BEI) Negative * Difficult to identify specific projects in each category (HON) * Overlapping categories (BERL, GLA) * Categories conform hegemonic process (HAM, VIE) * Categories too limited (MEX) * Loss of detail (LON) MAPPING TECHNIQUE * Google is easy to use (TOR) * Google is a bit difficult to use (TAL, MED) * Too many things on the map (GLA) * Scale: city area is too big to represent on the map area (CAI, TOR) * We want to include other media (video-pictures) (BERL) * Add conceptual maps for missing aspects (BERL) * A project can belong to more than one category (IST, BERN, CAI, GLA) * There can be more than one project for each category (TAL) * Keep key info on the map itself (LON) * Use open software (LON) CONCEPT * Work with metacategories and subcategories (SPET, MED, ADD) * Introduce specific local subcategories (BAS) * Introduce Time (VIE, AMS, GLA, SPE) * Include future proposals (WIN) * Make it more dynamic (IST, GLA) * Some processes cannot be expressed in a map (AMS, WIN, BAS) * Introduce relationships between different features (BERL) * Include state welfare policies (BERL) * Relation centre-periphery is not clear (SPE, GLA) CATEGORIES Add * environmental problems (FLO, BAS) * social and cultural policies (BAS, BAR) * contested spaces (HAM) * contested projects (IST) * global investors (SPE) * cultural heritage (SPE) * corruption (SPE) * traffic problems (FLO) * water infrastructure (BAR) * upgrading of green spaces (BAS) * financing and control (BERL) * social processes, exclusion and marginalisation (BEL) * evictions and urban operations (IST) * new transnational migration (IST) Can be deleted / not useful * gated communities (AMS, BAR, FLO, GLA) * flagship projects (SPE, BAR) * events (ADD, TAL) * informal settlements (GLA) * metropolitan region (ADD) T'o be changed' * Infrastructure: difficult to map (TOR, AMS) add privatisation (VIE) * Disinvestment area: no difference between state-led and privet-led (VIE, BAS) * Alternatives/Resistance: change in self organised spaces, social capital and collective urbanisation (HAM), only present activities or also past ones? (AMS) * Privatisation: private reinvestment and privatisation are often combined (VIE), redefine the link to land ownership or the effects of the management of space (VIE) * Investment: differentiate public and private investment (HAM) * CBD: must be ‘urban violence via privatisation/private security”(HAM) * City centre: too vague (IST) * Suburbia: must be articulated (ADD) * Events: split in single events/returning events/space occupied by festivals, public art, conference (IST) * Gated communities: add to privatised and exclusionary zones (BAS) * Trendy neighbourhood: does this mean gentrification or just a popular neighbourhood? (TAL) Arie van Wijngaarden Richterswill 3.7.2010